Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the phrase "configured to be mounted in a vehicle" in the preamble of Claim 1 of the ’253 patent is not a claim limitation. The court concluded that the claim describes a structurally complete invention without the phrase and that the phrase merely states the intended use of the vehicle event recorder system.
Holdings
- The phrase "configured to be mounted in a vehicle" does not limit the claims because claim 1 describes a structurally complete invention without that phrase and the phrase merely states the intended use of the claimed system.
Questions Presented
- Whether the phrase "configured to be mounted in a vehicle" in the preamble of claim 1 of the '253 patent is a claim limitation.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808-09 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…